* *It appears the page at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htmconstitutes a serious breach of copyright. The article, which was originally written and posted to the Internet by the owner of the account soup@arbornet.org, is falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose members maliciously removed all reference to its original creator. On a related note, the FUG seems to be part of an organized group to convince all States to adopt English as an official language, a bigoted and misguided policy. Plagiarism should not be tolerated. Thanks.
I hope we can reach an agreement on this as soon as possible. J''esp?re qu''on puisse trouver un accord dans les plus brefs d?lais. On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote:> It appears the page at > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm constitutes > a serious breach of copyright. The article, which was originally written > and posted to the Internet by the owner of the account soup@arbornet.org, is > falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose members maliciously removed all > reference to its original creator. On a related note, the FUG seems to be > part of an organized group to convince all States to adopt English as an > official language, a bigoted and misguided policy. > > Plagiarism should not be tolerated. > > Thanks. >
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> Date: Jun 18, 2006 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post To: Brett <thisdayislong@gmail.com> I think a formal apology should be issued by the infringers. Hasn''t this gone on long enough? On 6/18/06, Brett < thisdayislong@gmail.com> wrote:> > Hello, > > I have not received a response in regards to this article, and it > still does not hold the proper references. I have posted a DMCA > takedown notice, which is available for viewing at > http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>. I urge the webmaster of the > infringing site to add the copyright references as soon as possible. > > Thank you. > > Bonjour ? tous, > Je n''ai pas encore re?u de r?ponse au sujet de cet article, qui ne > porte pas ses r?ferences ?xig?es. J''ai affich? un "DMCA takedown > notice" (en anglais seulement) sur mon site, que l''on peut voir au > http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>. Je demande cordialement au > webma?tre du site non-autoris? d''ajouter les r?f?rences ?xig?es dans > les plus brefs d?lais. > > Merci. > > > On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote: > > It appears the page at > > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm constitutes > > a serious breach of copyright. The article, which was originally > written > > and posted to the Internet by the owner of the account soup@arbornet.org, > is > > falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose members maliciously removed > all > > reference to its original creator. On a related note, the FUG seems to > be > > part of an organized group to convince all States to adopt English as an > > > official language, a bigoted and misguided policy. > > > > Plagiarism should not be tolerated. > > > > Thanks. > > >
Ingrid Kast Fuller
2006-Jun-19 00:44 UTC
[Hou-freebsd] Serious breach of copyright -- First post
If someone added it to the freebsd-config mailing list, they should not have mailed a copyritten piece on a mailing list for public use. This has been added to the bottom of the page since we are unsure of the originator: We have been given the email address of: soup@arbornet.org as the original copyright person. Unfortunately, we have no way of confirming this as yet. We are trying to locate WHO originally wrote this. We took this off the freebsd-config mailing list which is a public mailing list. It seems this David Hoffman is directly attacking our group. Because there are no references to HOUFUG being a part of an organized group to adopt English as the official language. HOUFUG does not have any political ties with anyone. We only have a FreeBSD mailing list to discuss FreeBSD issues. "On a related note, the FUG seems to be part of an organized group to convince all States to adopt English as an official language, a bigoted and misguided policy." I personally have a link to the US English organization on my PERSONAL home page of www.ingridfuller.com. This has nothing to do with HOUFUG or FreeBSD at all. What I believe in is my business and my right as a citizen of the United States. This is NOT a misguided or bigoted policy. We''ve been speaking English since Day 1 and the International Language is "ENGLISH". Ingrid Kast Fuller CityScope Net 713-477-6161 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 <http://www.cityscope.net/> http://www.cityscope.net _____ From: hou-freebsd-admin@houfug.org [mailto:hou-freebsd-admin@houfug.org] On Behalf Of David Hoffman Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:49 PM To: hou-freebsd@houfug.org Cc: ingrid@cityscope.net; freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org; freebsd-standards@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; wikien-l@wikipedia.org; wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Hou-freebsd] Serious breach of copyright -- First post It appears the page at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm constitutes a serious breach of copyright. The article, which was originally written and posted to the Internet by the owner of the account soup@arbornet.org, is falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose members maliciously removed all reference to its original creator. On a related note, the FUG seems to be part of an organized group to convince all States to adopt English as an official language, a bigoted and misguided policy. Plagiarism should not be tolerated. Thanks.
David Hoffman wrote:> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> > Date: Jun 18, 2006 8:38 PM > Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post > To: Brett <thisdayislong@gmail.com> > > I think a formal apology should be issued by the infringers. > > Hasn''t this gone on long enough? > > > On 6/18/06, Brett < thisdayislong@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have not received a response in regards to this article, and it >> still does not hold the proper references. I have posted a DMCA >> takedown notice, which is available for viewing at >> http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>. >> I urge the webmaster of the >> infringing site to add the copyright references as soon as possible. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Bonjour ? tous, >> Je n''ai pas encore re?u de r?ponse au sujet de cet article, qui ne >> porte pas ses r?ferences ?xig?es. J''ai affich? un "DMCA takedown >> notice" (en anglais seulement) sur mon site, que l''on peut voir au >> http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>. >> Je demande cordialement au >> webma?tre du site non-autoris? d''ajouter les r?f?rences ?xig?es dans >> les plus brefs d?lais. >> >> Merci. >> >> >> On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote: >> > It appears the page at >> > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm constitutes >> > a serious breach of copyright. The article, which was originally >> written >> > and posted to the Internet by the owner of the account >> soup@arbornet.org, >> is >> > falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose members maliciously >> removed >> all >> > reference to its original creator. On a related note, the FUG >> seems to >> be >> > part of an organized group to convince all States to adopt English >> as an >> >> > official language, a bigoted and misguided policy. >> > >> > Plagiarism should not be tolerated. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >Sorry if im being naive, but what does this have to do with the official FreeBSD project? and even more so, these lists? Ta, Joe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-user-groups/attachments/20060619/cf2f4399/signature.pgp
Joe Holden wrote:> David Hoffman wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> >> Date: Jun 18, 2006 8:38 PM >> Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post >> To: Brett <thisdayislong@gmail.com> >> >> I think a formal apology should be issued by the infringers. >> >> Hasn''t this gone on long enough? >> >> >> On 6/18/06, Brett < thisdayislong@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have not received a response in regards to this article, and it >>> still does not hold the proper references. I have posted a DMCA >>> takedown notice, which is available for viewing at >>> http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>. >>> I urge the webmaster of the >>> infringing site to add the copyright references as soon as possible. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Bonjour ? tous, >>> Je n''ai pas encore re?u de r?ponse au sujet de cet article, qui ne >>> porte pas ses r?ferences ?xig?es. J''ai affich? un "DMCA takedown >>> notice" (en anglais seulement) sur mon site, que l''on peut voir au >>> http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>. >>> Je demande cordialement au >>> webma?tre du site non-autoris? d''ajouter les r?f?rences ?xig?es dans >>> les plus brefs d?lais. >>> >>> Merci. >>> >>> >>> On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It appears the page at >>>> http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm constitutes >>>> a serious breach of copyright. The article, which was originally >>>> >>> written >>> >>>> and posted to the Internet by the owner of the account >>>> >>> soup@arbornet.org, >>> is >>> >>>> falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose members maliciously >>>> >>> removed >>> all >>> >>>> reference to its original creator. On a related note, the FUG >>>> >>> seems to >>> be >>> >>>> part of an organized group to convince all States to adopt English >>>> >>> as an >>> >>> >>>> official language, a bigoted and misguided policy. >>>> >>>> Plagiarism should not be tolerated. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> > Sorry if im being naive, but what does this have to do with the official > FreeBSD project? and even more so, these lists? > > Ta, > Joe > >Ignore that, sorry. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-user-groups/attachments/20060619/d5a70bc9/signature.pgp
I responded to Bretts email 6 minutes after he informed me there maybe a problem with this article. He did NOT bother to tell me he was the owner of it. All I knew is someone named Brett at thisdayislong@gmail.com was letting me know there was a problem. I immediately went to arbornet.org to see where the original information was so I could find the originator''s name and emailed him back, here is my reply. -----Original Message----- From: Ingrid Kast Fuller [mailto:ingrid@cityscope.net] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:40 PM To: ''Brett'' Subject: RE: concerned question I got the information from the freebsd-config mailing list which is referenced at the bottom. Do you know where the original information is on arbornet.org? I would not want to infringe on anyone''s rights. Ingrid Kast Fuller CityScope Net 713-477-6161 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 http://www.cityscope.net -----Original Message----- From: Brett [mailto:thisdayislong@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:34 PM To: ingrid@cityscope.net Subject: concerned question Hi. It has come to my attention that you have an article, located at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm that is hosted on your fine site and yet is not referenced. It holds a copyright reference for houfug, who did not write the article. Please attribute the work to soup@arbornet.org . Thank you, A concerned citizen
David Hoffman
2006-Jun-19 00:55 UTC
[Hou-freebsd] Serious breach of copyright -- First post
On 6/18/06, Ingrid Kast Fuller <ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote:> > If someone added it to the freebsd-config mailing list, they should not > have mailed a copyritten piece on a mailing list for public use. > This has been added to the bottom of the page since we are unsure of the > originator: >Things can be distributed on public mailing lists while still retaining their copyright. soup@arbornet.org did nothing to void his exclusive rights to the work in question. *We have been given the email address of: soup@arbornet.org as the original> copyright person. Unfortunately, we have no way of confirming this as yet. > We are trying to locate WHO originally wrote this. We took this off the > freebsd-config mailing list which is a public mailing list.* >You''ve been provided both with an archive of initial publication including soup@arbornet.org''s address as the author, as well as a URL to a DMCA takedown notice hosted in his webspace. This is sufficient. *It seems this David Hoffman is directly attacking our group. Because there> are no references to HOUFUG being a part of an organized group to adopt > English as the official language. HOUFUG does not have any political ties > with anyone. We only have a FreeBSD mailing list to discuss FreeBSD issues. > * >I''m not directly attacking your group. If you''re not political, and I''m arguing against something political, how could I possibly be ''attacking'' your group? "On a related note, the FUG seems to be part of an organized group to> convince all States to adopt English as an official language, a bigoted and > misguided policy." > > I personally have a link to the US English organization on my PERSONAL > home page of www.ingridfuller.com. This has nothing to do with HOUFUG or > FreeBSD at all. What I believe in is my business and my right as a citizen > of the United States. This is NOT a misguided or bigoted policy. We''ve > been speaking English since Day 1 and the International Language is > "ENGLISH". >You certainly have a right to be misguided and bigoted. Americans have spoken English since ''Day 1'', but they''ve also spoken several other languages since that time, and today speak even more. The lingua franca of the world today may be English, but it doesn''t follow from that that it should be the official language of all states. *Ingrid Kast Fuller> **CityScope Net 713-477-6161 > 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 > Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 > **http://www.cityscope.net* <http://www.cityscope.net/> > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* hou-freebsd-admin@houfug.org [mailto:hou-freebsd-admin@houfug.org] > *On Behalf Of *David Hoffman > *Sent:* Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:49 PM > *To:* hou-freebsd@houfug.org > *Cc:* ingrid@cityscope.net; freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org; > freebsd-standards@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; wikien-l@wikipedia.org; wikitech-l@wikimedia.org > *Subject:* [Hou-freebsd] Serious breach of copyright -- First post > > **It appears the page at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htmconstitutes a serious breach of copyright. The article, which was > originally written and posted to the Internet by the owner of the account > soup@arbornet.org, is falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose members > maliciously removed all reference to its original creator. On a related > note, the FUG seems to be part of an organized group to convince all States > to adopt English as an official language, a bigoted and misguided policy. > > Plagiarism should not be tolerated. > > Thanks. >
Hello I hope the DMCA copyright notice, found at http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html , clears up any confusion. thank you! On 6/18/06, Ingrid Kast Fuller <ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote:> I responded to Bretts email 6 minutes after he informed me there maybe a > problem with this article. He did NOT bother to tell me he was the owner of > it. All I knew is someone named Brett at thisdayislong@gmail.com was > letting me know there was a problem. I immediately went to arbornet.org to > see where the original information was so I could find the originator''s name > and emailed him back, here is my reply. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ingrid Kast Fuller [mailto:ingrid@cityscope.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:40 PM > To: ''Brett'' > Subject: RE: concerned question > > I got the information from the freebsd-config mailing list which is > referenced at the bottom. > Do you know where the original information is on arbornet.org? I would not > want to infringe on anyone''s rights. > > > Ingrid Kast Fuller > CityScope Net 713-477-6161 > 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 > Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 > http://www.cityscope.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett [mailto:thisdayislong@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:34 PM > To: ingrid@cityscope.net > Subject: concerned question > > Hi. > > It has come to my attention that you have an article, located at > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm > that is hosted on your fine site and yet is not referenced. It holds a > copyright reference for houfug, who did not write the article. > Please attribute the work to soup@arbornet.org . > > Thank you, > A concerned citizen > > >
It''ll certainly be less confusing that what HouFUG is publishing. They''ve now noted on their site that it was written by you. However, they STILL claim they own the copyright. Have you waived any of your exclusive rights to the work? On 6/18/06, Brett <thisdayislong@gmail.com> wrote:> > Hello > > I hope the DMCA copyright notice, found at > http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html , clears up any confusion. > > thank you! > On 6/18/06, Ingrid Kast Fuller <ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote: > > I responded to Bretts email 6 minutes after he informed me there maybe a > > problem with this article. He did NOT bother to tell me he was the > owner of > > it. All I knew is someone named Brett at thisdayislong@gmail.com was > > letting me know there was a problem. I immediately went to arbornet.orgto > > see where the original information was so I could find the originator''s > name > > and emailed him back, here is my reply. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ingrid Kast Fuller [mailto:ingrid@cityscope.net] > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:40 PM > > To: ''Brett'' > > Subject: RE: concerned question > > > > I got the information from the freebsd-config mailing list which is > > referenced at the bottom. > > Do you know where the original information is on arbornet.org? I would > not > > want to infringe on anyone''s rights. > > > > > > Ingrid Kast Fuller > > CityScope Net 713-477-6161 > > 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 > > Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 > > http://www.cityscope.net > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brett [mailto:thisdayislong@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:34 PM > > To: ingrid@cityscope.net > > Subject: concerned question > > > > Hi. > > > > It has come to my attention that you have an article, located at > > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm > > that is hosted on your fine site and yet is not referenced. It holds a > > copyright reference for houfug, who did not write the article. > > Please attribute the work to soup@arbornet.org . > > > > Thank you, > > A concerned citizen > > > > > > >
I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright.
Update: their website now attributes copyright to both HouFUG AND Brett. This is despite the fact that Brett seems to be the sole owner of the work. I''m not sure why this community feels it can disregard rights to intellectual property, especially when it produces so much on its OWN to be proud of. Why steal other people''s stuff? On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote:> > It''ll certainly be less confusing that what HouFUG is publishing. They''ve > now noted on their site that it was written by you. However, they STILL > claim they own the copyright. Have you waived any of your exclusive rights > to the work? > > On 6/18/06, Brett <thisdayislong@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello > > > > I hope the DMCA copyright notice, found at > > http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>, clears up any confusion. > > > > thank you! > > On 6/18/06, Ingrid Kast Fuller < ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote: > > > I responded to Bretts email 6 minutes after he informed me there maybe > > a > > > problem with this article. He did NOT bother to tell me he was the > > owner of > > > it. All I knew is someone named Brett at thisdayislong@gmail.com was > > > letting me know there was a problem. I immediately went to > > arbornet.org to > > > see where the original information was so I could find the > > originator''s name > > > and emailed him back, here is my reply. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ingrid Kast Fuller [mailto: ingrid@cityscope.net] > > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:40 PM > > > To: ''Brett'' > > > Subject: RE: concerned question > > > > > > I got the information from the freebsd-config mailing list which is > > > referenced at the bottom. > > > Do you know where the original information is on arbornet.org? I > > would not > > > want to infringe on anyone''s rights. > > > > > > > > > Ingrid Kast Fuller > > > CityScope Net 713-477-6161 > > > 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 > > > Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 > > > http://www.cityscope.net > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Brett [mailto:thisdayislong@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:34 PM > > > To: ingrid@cityscope.net > > > Subject: concerned question > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > It has come to my attention that you have an article, located at > > > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm > > > that is hosted on your fine site and yet is not referenced. It holds > > a > > > copyright reference for houfug, who did not write the article. > > > Please attribute the work to soup@arbornet.org . > > > > > > Thank you, > > > A concerned citizen > > > > > > > > > > > > >
On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote:> > I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am > afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It > constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys > only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright. >I''m afraid you''re incorrect. The work in question is indeed copyrightable under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ratified, including the United States, where the content is hosted. The United States, as well as many other countries, also have national laws which allow this work to be copyrighted. It''s also important to note that HouFUG clearly believes the work can be copyrighted, since they have included a copyright notice on the page. This implies tremendous bad faith: regardless of whether or not the article is copyrightable (it is), they have removed any reference to the true owner and have claimed it as their own. This is not acceptable behaviour.
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:44:02 -0500 "Ingrid Kast Fuller" <ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote:> If someone added it to the freebsd-config mailing list, they should not have > mailed a copyritten piece on a mailing list for public use. > This has been added to the bottom of the page since we are unsure of the > originator:Viewing the page, it does seem to have the email address listed, with a name. Now, I haven''t checked the name, mainly because I have not emailed this person; however, regardless of the issues discussed, the FreeBSD doesn''t control user groups. The so called issue should be taken up with the user group in question. -- Tom Rhodes
Your quote below is incorrect, we have been in contact with the owner of the article and he has approved the uploaded version which includes his name at the bottom." The HOUFUG website has a copyright of it''s own for the design, images and other content. We have referenced the owner of this article as approved by Brett Soupman. At this point we are done with this copyright issue, it has been resolved ammicably with the owner. "....they have removed any reference to the true owner and have claimed it as their own." Ingrid Kast Fuller CityScope Net 713-477-6161 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 <http://www.cityscope.net/> http://www.cityscope.net _____ From: David Hoffman [mailto:zionicman@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:20 PM To: Dennis Olvany Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org; thisdayislong; ingrid@cityscope.net Subject: Re: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote: I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright. I''m afraid you''re incorrect. The work in question is indeed copyrightable under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ratified, including the United States, where the content is hosted. The United States, as well as many other countries, also have national laws which allow this work to be copyrighted. It''s also important to note that HouFUG clearly believes the work can be copyrighted, since they have included a copyright notice on the page. This implies tremendous bad faith: regardless of whether or not the article is copyrightable (it is), they have removed any reference to the true owner and have claimed it as their own. This is not acceptable behaviour.
You''re correct that the quote is incorrect; it''s based on an older version of the page. However, most of what you wrote is incorrect. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the author''s name is ''Brett Soupman''? That seems like a pseudonym at best. It''s hardly clear he''s given you permission to republish the work, let alone to claim it as your own. Moreover, due to the copyright notice attributing the page to HOUFUG, exactly who owns the article is ambiguous at best. Sure, Brett owns it, but does HOUFUG own it as well? This isn''t at all clear. Additionally, the page in question uses other copyrighted works, including the logos of FreeBSD and Google, without properly attributing them, unless HOUFUG is in some way officially partnered with Google. Finally, you haven''t apologized for your egregious, illegal, and tortious act of bad faith, that is, republishing the article without permission of the owner and claiming it was owned by HOULUG. According to archive.org''s Wayback Machine, the article has been posted in that extremely misleading way for at least two years. Doesn''t the owner deserve a public apology and a clarification posted on that page? It seems to be the least you could do. I''m afraid you think you can get away with this because you think soup''s Francophile tendencies make him a target, as per your ''English only'' policy. On 6/18/06, Ingrid Kast Fuller <ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote:> > Your quote below is incorrect, we have been in contact with the owner of > the article and he has approved the uploaded version which includes his name > at the bottom." > The HOUFUG website has a copyright of it''s own for the design, images and > other content. We have referenced the owner of this article as approved by > Brett Soupman. At this point we are done with this copyright issue, it has > been resolved ammicably with the owner. > > "....they have removed any reference to the true owner and have claimed it > as their own." > > > *Ingrid Kast Fuller > **CityScope Net 713-477-6161 > 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 > Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 > **http://www.cityscope.net* <http://www.cityscope.net/> > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* David Hoffman [mailto:zionicman@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:20 PM > *To:* Dennis Olvany > *Cc:* freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; > freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org; thisdayislong; ingrid@cityscope.net > > *Subject:* Re: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post > > On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am > > afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It > > constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys > > only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright. > > > > > I''m afraid you''re incorrect. The work in question is indeed copyrightable > under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ratified, including > the United States, where the content is hosted. The United States, as well > as many other countries, also have national laws which allow this work to be > copyrighted. > > It''s also important to note that HouFUG clearly believes the work can be > copyrighted, since they have included a copyright notice on the page. This > implies tremendous bad faith: regardless of whether or not the article is > copyrightable (it is), they have removed any reference to the true owner and > have claimed it as their own. > > This is not acceptable behaviour. >
David Hoffman wrote:> Update: their website now attributes copyright to both HouFUG AND Brett. > This is despite the fact that Brett seems to be the sole owner of the work. > I''m not sure why this community feels it can disregard rights to > intellectual property, especially when it produces so much on its OWN to be > proud of. Why steal other people''s stuff?howto add 1. two 2. plus two 3. equals four (c) David Hoffman
David Hoffman
2006-Jun-19 02:40 UTC
Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote:> > On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> ...facts are not eligible for copyright. > > > > > I''m afraid you''re incorrect. The work in question is indeed > > copyrightable > > > under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ratified, > > including > > > the United States, where the content is hosted. The United States, as > > well > > > as many other countries, also have national laws which allow this work > > > to be > > > copyrighted. > > > > At best, the article may be considered a derivative work of the > > described software/hardware and therefore the intellectual property of > > the respective manufacturers. > > > > > First you say only ''literary or artistic'' works, and not ''facts'' (hint: > the article was more than just facts), are elligible for copyright, and now > you say that, not only are ''facts'' elligible for copyright, but that they > hold such a strong copyright that works which refer to facts published > elsewhere are necessarily derivative and are not elligible for a seperate > copyright by the writer. Which is it? You can''t have both. And, really, > you can''t have either: there are a multitude of works that are ''derivative'' > in the sense you describe, yet hold perfectly valid copyrights. Don''t > believe me? Try hosting a bunch of O''Reilly books on a site hosted in a > country that respects copyright. > > Now, even if you''re correct that Brett doesn''t have a valid copyright > (which he does) and that unspecified entities unknown own the copyright to > the article (which they don''t), we still have the same problem: FreeBSD > claiming to own something they don''t, and not even attributing it to its > true authors. >
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> Date: Jun 18, 2006 10:27 PM Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post To: Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> While your mocking post is certainly intended to bolster your point, it instead bolsters mine. There are MANY books on mathematics that describe only facts yet hold perfectly valid copyrights. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright . On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote:> David Hoffman wrote: > > Update: their website now attributes copyright to both HouFUG AND > Brett. > > This is despite the fact that Brett seems to be the sole owner of the > work. > > I''m not sure why this community feels it can disregard rights to > > intellectual property, especially when it produces so much on its OWN to > be > > proud of. Why steal other people''s stuff? > > howto add > > 1. two > 2. plus two > 3. equals four > > (c) David Hoffman >
mail.matt.mcdonald@gmail.com
2006-Jun-19 02:57 UTC
Serious breach of copyright -- First post
I think the distinction here is that while the facts themselves are not open to copyright, the actual statement of them is. Therefore I can write a book explaining that "2 + 2 = 4, that is if you take two apples and two oranges and put them in a bushel, you have four pieces of fruit in the bushel" and copyright it. If you were to use this passage from that book then you infringe on my copyright, however if you simply state that 2 + 2 = 4 then you do not. Of course I understand that there are some branches of mathematics and philosophy that might argue that 2 + 2 = 4 is not fact... but I digress. (c) Matt McDonald -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of David Hoffman Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:41 PM To: Dennis Olvany Cc: Ingrid Kast Fuller; thisdayislong; freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> Date: Jun 18, 2006 10:27 PM Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post To: Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> While your mocking post is certainly intended to bolster your point, it instead bolsters mine. There are MANY books on mathematics that describe only facts yet hold perfectly valid copyrights. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright . On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote:> David Hoffman wrote: > > Update: their website now attributes copyright to both HouFUG AND > Brett. > > This is despite the fact that Brett seems to be the sole owner of the > work. > > I''m not sure why this community feels it can disregard rights to > > intellectual property, especially when it produces so much on its OWN to > be > > proud of. Why steal other people''s stuff? > > howto add > > 1. two > 2. plus two > 3. equals four > > (c) David Hoffman >_______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Dennis Olvany
2006-Jun-19 03:58 UTC
Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
David Hoffman wrote:> Now, even if you''re correct that Brett doesn''t have a valid > copyright (which he does) and that unspecified entities unknown own > the copyright to the article (which they don''t), we still have the > same problem: FreeBSD claiming to own something they don''t, and not > even attributing it to its true authors.Derivative work may be a bit of a stretch. A failed attempt at adopting your point of view that facts are actually copyrightable. Math books are descriptive and thus copyrightable, though the facts contained therein are not. The article in question is not at all descriptive. If it were, it would be a different story. It is a 100% factual procedure.
"David Hoffman" <zionicman@gmail.com> writes:> It''ll certainly be less confusing that what HouFUG is publishing. They''ve > now noted on their site that it was written by you. However, they STILL > claim they own the copyright.No, they claim a copyright for their site, which is perfectly valid - look up "compilation copyright" in your favorite search engine. DES -- Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des@des.no
Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> writes:> I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am > afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It > constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys > only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright.You''re on to something, but you didn''t quite get it right. Copyright law does not care about artistic or literary qualities; and while plain facts are not copyrightable, as you point out, their expression certainly is. A Haynes workshop manual, for instance, is neither art nor literature, and it is full of facts, but it is definitely copyrightable. I can put up a web page describing how to change the starter motor on my brother''s Citro?n CX (bitch of a job, I''ll have you know), but I have to use my own words and photos, not those from my brother''s Haynes manual. DES -- Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des@des.no
>> facts are not eligible for copyright.> plain facts are not copyrightable, as you point out, their expression > certainly is.The concept of a fact obviously may not be copyrighted because it is merely a concept. Barring descriptive literary devices, the facts may be copied at will in their expressed form. A photo, being a descriptive device, is copyrightable. Considering the example of the Haynes manual, I can extract factual information --such as a starter change procedure-- from the manual word-for-word and use it. The hysteria of the original poster remains unjustified as he will find that the usage of the article in question falls squarely under the veil of fair use, which still does not infer the work is copyrightable.
--- David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> wrote:> Update: their website now attributes copyright > to both HouFUG AND Brett. > This is despite the fact that Brett seems to be > the sole owner of the work. > I''m not sure why this community feels it can > disregard rights to > intellectual property, especially when it > produces so much on its OWN to be > proud of. Why steal other people''s stuff? > > On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <zionicman@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > It''ll certainly be less confusing that what > HouFUG is publishing. They''ve > > now noted on their site that it was written > by you. However, they STILL > > claim they own the copyright. Have you > waived any of your exclusive rights > > to the work? > > > > On 6/18/06, Brett <thisdayislong@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hello > > > > > > I hope the DMCA copyright notice, found at > > > >http://arbornet.org/~soup/dmca.html<http://arbornet.org/%7Esoup/dmca.html>,> clears up any confusion. > > > > > > thank you! > > > On 6/18/06, Ingrid Kast Fuller < > ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote: > > > > I responded to Bretts email 6 minutes > after he informed me there maybe > > > a > > > > problem with this article. He did NOT > bother to tell me he was the > > > owner of > > > > it. All I knew is someone named Brett at > thisdayislong@gmail.com was > > > > letting me know there was a problem. I > immediately went to > > > arbornet.org to > > > > see where the original information was so > I could find the > > > originator''s name > > > > and emailed him back, here is my reply. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ingrid Kast Fuller [mailto: > ingrid@cityscope.net] > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:40 PM > > > > To: ''Brett'' > > > > Subject: RE: concerned question > > > > > > > > I got the information from the > freebsd-config mailing list which is > > > > referenced at the bottom. > > > > Do you know where the original > information is on arbornet.org? I > > > would not > > > > want to infringe on anyone''s rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ingrid Kast Fuller > > > > CityScope Net 713-477-6161 > > > > 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264 > > > > Pasadena, TX 77504-3076 > > > > http://www.cityscope.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Brett > [mailto:thisdayislong@gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 6:34 PM > > > > To: ingrid@cityscope.net > > > > Subject: concerned question > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > It has come to my attention that you have > an article, located at > > > > > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm > > > > that is hosted on your fine site and yet > is not referenced. It holds > > > a > > > > copyright reference for houfug, who did > not write the article. > > > > Please attribute the work to > soup@arbornet.org . > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > A concerned citizenIts interesting that the same types of people who whine incessently about things like open source will get all worked up about a "copyright" on some stupid how-to "article". You know what they say; if its not worth money, you might as well get credit. That notice on the bottom of the page looks so stupid and childish. Its almost like they''re mocking the author. Like who cares who wrote it. dt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> writes:> The concept of a fact obviously may not be copyrighted because it is > merely a concept. Barring descriptive literary devices, the facts may be > copied at will in their expressed form. A photo, being a descriptive > device, is copyrightable. Considering the example of the Haynes manual, > I can extract factual information --such as a starter change procedure-- > from the manual word-for-word and use it.No, you can''t. Don''t take my word for it; ask a lawyer. DES -- Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des@des.no
On 6/19/06, Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> wrote:> > > Its interesting that the same types of people who > whine incessently about things like open source > will get all worked up about a "copyright" on > some stupid how-to "article". > > You know what they say; if its not worth money, > you might as well get credit. > > That notice on the bottom of the page looks so > stupid and childish. Its almost like they''re > mocking the author. Like who cares who wrote it. > > dt >Obviously, you have never spent days trying out a relatively undocumented procedure, finally getting it right, and then decided to help others out by writing a howto document. I am perfectly happy that Ingrid decided to host this document on her site, but credit was due. Some people do care about the stuff they create. Try writing something of value, and maybe then you''ll be qualified to talk about copyright.> __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brett wrote:> Obviously, you have never spent days trying out a relatively > undocumented procedure, finally getting it right, and then decided to > help others out by writing a howto document. I am perfectly happy > that Ingrid decided to host this document on her site, but credit was > due. Some people do care about the stuff they create. > > Try writing something of value, and maybe then you''ll be qualified to > talk about copyright. > >True to the fact that credit was due, I think most everyone on this list has written at least 1 report (or many more) or created some form of work sometime in their lives incumbent of deserving copyright recognition. So, flaunting that someone is not qualified to talk about copyright is most certainly inadequate. - -- Christopher Weldon President, Lead Systems Administrator Cerberus Interactive, Inc. cweldon@cerberusonline.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFElw8HZxvk7JEXkbERAt8AAKCOI5iOBhZCvQ4SldBverhQF0Ja5gCfWC2D wi96EHZAnYKOodLzv31IDwA=FcPb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6/19/06, Christopher Weldon <cweldon@cerberusonline.com> wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Brett wrote: > > Obviously, you have never spent days trying out a relatively > > undocumented procedure, finally getting it right, and then decided to > > help others out by writing a howto document. I am perfectly happy > > that Ingrid decided to host this document on her site, but credit was > > due. Some people do care about the stuff they create. > > > > Try writing something of value, and maybe then you''ll be qualified to > > talk about copyright. > > > > > > True to the fact that credit was due, I think most everyone on this list > has written at least 1 report (or many more) or created some form of > work sometime in their lives incumbent of deserving copyright > recognition. So, flaunting that someone is not qualified to talk about > copyright is most certainly inadequate.Danial''s comment, which was nothing short of, "who cares who wrote that stupid article", was insulting and still more inadequate.> > - -- > Christopher Weldon > President, Lead Systems Administrator > Cerberus Interactive, Inc. > cweldon@cerberusonline.com > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFElw8HZxvk7JEXkbERAt8AAKCOI5iOBhZCvQ4SldBverhQF0Ja5gCfWC2D > wi96EHZAnYKOodLzv31IDwA> =FcPb > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:> Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> writes: >> The concept of a fact obviously may not be copyrighted because it is >> merely a concept. Barring descriptive literary devices, the facts may be >> copied at will in their expressed form. A photo, being a descriptive >> device, is copyrightable. Considering the example of the Haynes manual, >> I can extract factual information --such as a starter change procedure-- >> from the manual word-for-word and use it.> No, you can''t. Don''t take my word for it; ask a lawyer.Johnathan Michaels hit on the next point I would like to make and that is the distinction between patent and copyright. A method or process may be patented, but the factual written procedure of such may not be copyrighted. I''ll follow up with some examples of the types are things that are not copyrightable in a final attempt to convey my point. Roses are red. Violets are blue. 2+2=4 howto change oil 1. remove oil cap 2. drain oil 3. remove filter 4. etc.
Please note that they modified the page several times while I was involved in this discussion. That specific comment was about an old revision. However, the current version of the site still has a problem: while the HouFUG copyright notice could be in reference to the page and not the article, the notice doesn''t make that at all clear. This should be changed. On 6/19/06, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> wrote:> > "David Hoffman" <zionicman@gmail.com> writes: > > It''ll certainly be less confusing that what HouFUG is > publishing. They''ve > > now noted on their site that it was written by you. However, they STILL > > claim they own the copyright. > > No, they claim a copyright for their site, which is perfectly valid - > look up "compilation copyright" in your favorite search engine. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des@des.no >
On 6/19/06, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:> > On Sunday 18 June 2006 19:49, David Hoffman wrote: > > * *It appears the page at > > http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htmconstitutes a serious > > breach of copyright. The article, which was > > originally written and posted to the Internet by the owner of the > account > > soup@arbornet.org, is falsely attributed to the Houston FUG, whose > members > > maliciously removed all reference to its original creator. On a related > > note, the FUG seems to be part of an organized group to convince all > States > > to adopt English as an official language, a bigoted and misguided > policy. > > > > Plagiarism should not be tolerated. > > > > Thanks. > > 1) Please go outdoors and ride a bike or something. You are apparently > way, way overstressed. > > 2) Using terms like "malicious" without proof (and it appears the claim > was completely false based on follow-ups since the user group in > question > added an attribute once they were notified) reduces your credibility > immensely. If anything, if the HouFUG were anywhere as litiguous as > you > they could probably bring a civil suit of libel against you. :) In > general it works better if one calmly works to resolve disputes instead > of yelling and screaming and whipping out DMCA notices as the first > action. > > 3) FreeBSD is not a political association and has no political ties. This > should be rather obvious. On a general note, if you want to discuss > issues, it is generally far more credible and useful to include some > content in your argument besides elementary-school style name-calling. > You seem to have done this twice in this e-mail for both issues. > > 4) You also violated FreeBSD mailing list etiquette by cross-posting to > four mailing lists. FreeBSD-standards@'' charter has to do with > conformance to computer standards such as POSIX, etc. Please have the > courtesy to make sure the lists you are mailing actually discuss what > you think they discuss before posting in the future as most list > readers > have enough relevant e-mail to wade through as it is. > > -- > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org >2) What do you call removing all reference to the author of a copyrighted work, and then republishing it claiming it as your own? If not malicious, that''s certainly an act of bad faith. Moreover, the fact that they added the notice only AFTER being caught red handed does not suggest they weren''t being malicious when they stole the article in question. Also, why are you suggesting I''m litigious? I didn''t once make reference to any lawsuit. 3) While you might want to refer to me as a name-caller, litigious, and puerile, it''s far from clear that FreeBSD doesn''t have political ties when the leaders of FreeBSD groups actively campaign for partially restricting people''s ability to communicate in any language but English. Even if you ignored these extracuricular activities, though, you''d still be faced with the fact that FreeBSD is de jure politicized in favor of many things, including free software. 4) Discussions of copyright seem appropriate for freebsd-standard, since any reputable organization that publishes material with computers today makes a good faith effort to ensure they do not violate any copyright. It is therefore a de facto standard.
Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> writes:> Johnathan Michaels hit on the next point I would like to make and > that is the distinction between patent and copyright. A method or > process may be patented, but the factual written procedure of such > may not be copyrighted. I''ll follow up with some examples of the > types are things that are not copyrightable in a final attempt to > convey my point.You are wrong. The method or process is patentable. A written description of the method or process is copyrightable. DES -- Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des@des.no
On Sunday 18 June 2006 21:54, David Hoffman wrote:> However, most of what you wrote is incorrect. Are you seriously trying to > tell us that the author''s name is ''Brett Soupman''? That seems like a > pseudonym at best. It''s hardly clear he''s given you permission to republish > the work, let alone to claim it as your own.Do you represent the copyright holder of this article in any manner? I''m not convinced that you do if you''re not even aware of what his name is. And even if Brett Soupman is a pseudonym (which I have seen no indication to support that) the author still has copyright -- something you wish to argue about -- but can grant the use of his work under the pseudonym. If he couldn''t then it would be pointless to use one in the first place.> Moreover, due to the > copyright notice attributing the page to HOUFUG, exactly who owns the > article is ambiguous at best. Sure, Brett owns it, but does HOUFUG own it > as well? This isn''t at all clear.It is standard practice on the web for site and design copyright to go at the bottom of each page. The fact that this copyright is stated in the same location the site and not the article (as well as the fact that it''s on every page) would lead any reasonable person to believe it talks about the website and not the article. Especially considering that valid copyright is now listed on the site in large clear font. You''ve given strong reason to suspect that you''re just trying to stir up trouble and not actually concerned about this copyright issue. If you had been, this would have been approached in a much different manner. I''m not sure if you are upset about the reference on a personal webpage to the English only thing (something surely not supported by the project itself) or have just found a reason to act self-righteous for other purposes. If you are, in fact, representing the copyright holder of this article or any other item on the website, could you please clarify that and stop trying to incite something? -Kevin
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:> Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> writes: >> Johnathan Michaels hit on the next point I would like to make and >> that is the distinction between patent and copyright. A method or >> process may be patented, but the factual written procedure of such >> may not be copyrighted. I''ll follow up with some examples of the >> types are things that are not copyrightable in a final attempt to >> convey my point.> You are wrong. The method or process is patentable. A written > description of the method or process is copyrightable.howto change oil 1. remove oil cap 2. drain oil 3. remove filter 4. etc. So, you''re saying my little oil change procedure is copyrightable? Laughable.
Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> writes:> Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > You are wrong. The method or process is patentable. A written > > description of the method or process is copyrightable. > > howto change oil > 1. remove oil cap > 2. drain oil > 3. remove filter > 4. etc. > > So, you''re saying my little oil change procedure is copyrightable?Yes.> Laughable.I''m sorry you feel that way. DES -- Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des@des.no
Could people please stop multi cross posting eg:
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org,
freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org,
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Please go chat just on freebsd-chat@freebsd.org The FreeBSD list
etiquette defined on web deprecates cross posting more than 2 lists,
(personally I deprecate more than 1). This was sent to just 1 list:
freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org (& previous cc''d people).
--
Julian Stacey. Consultant Unix Net & Sys. Eng., Munich. http://berklix.com
Mail in Ascii, HTML=spam. Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.